Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 2316 times)

Maria Dolorosa · « **Reply #35 on:** March 11, 2026, 01:37:43 PM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on March 11, 2026, 01:30:54 PM

It's never been established that Archbishop Thuc withheld his intention for the Palmerians. That claim stems mainly from the 1982 Angelus article, which says he published a letter soon after saying this. However, the letter he wrote soon after in which he renounces his actions with the Palmerians, is referenced by the Vatican in a commentary in the decree of excommunication, and says nothing about withholding intention. No letter with him saying this has ever been produced, and it appears that the Angelus article exaggerated the statements made in his letter to Archbishop of Seville (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 17, 1976). Thuc-line critics have later claimed that such evidence was on private tapes, but those also have never been produced. The claim that he ever said he simulated sacraments is unverified hearsay, likely stemming from an exaggeration in the Angelus article.

How do you know that is the letter the Angelus was referring to? If you are referring to Fr. Jenkins' claim about having interviewed Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller and recording it on tape, it is referenced and transcribed in "The Sacred and the Profane" by Bishop Kelly. His book is available online. https://congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SacredandProfane.pdf

I will email Fr. Jenkins myself and ask if he has produced these recordings and if not, to please do so. I will get back to everyone here about that.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #36 on:** March 11, 2026, 01:44:55 PM »

Quote from: Maria Dolorosa on March 11, 2026, 01:37:43 PM

How do you know that is the letter the Angelus was referring to?

Where is the letter, then? Where is ANY letter where +Thuc admitted this? Without PROOF that +Thuc said he withheld intention, then you must, PER CANON LAW, presume validity.

Quote

If you are referring to Fr. Jenkins' claim about having interviewed Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller and recording it on tape, it is referenced and transcribed in "The Sacred and the Profane" by Bishop Kelly. His book is available online. https://congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SacredandProfane.pdf

I will email Fr. Jenkins myself and ask if he has produced these recordings and if not, to please do so. I will get back to everyone here about that.

Who cares who Fr Jenkins interviewed? This proves nothing. It's hearsay. It's just opinion. Unless Fr Jenkins interviewed +Thuc personally, then this interview with 3rd parties isn't any kind of proof.

How about I have a taped interview with Matthew, the owner of this site, and we discuss the fact that the user, Maria Dolorosa, is a fake catholic? Is our interview proof of anything? Of course not.

hgodwinson · « **Reply #37 on:** March 11, 2026, 02:31:36 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 11, 2026, 09:45:14 AM

So why did you list the sins of +Thuc in regards to V2, and then conclude by saying you avoid +Thuc-line priests? There's no logical connection.

I wasn’t making any sort of syllogism. If you look at the post I responded to, the guy was being a melodramatic, dogmatic sedevacantist, saying any Catholic who is not also a sedevacantist is going to hell. I just wanted to know how he would react to some truths about Archbishop Thuc after his exile. Maybe they might prompt him to research the issue a little further, and look into more sources than Father Cekada (after leaving the SSPV) and the CMRI.

Yeti · « **Reply #38 on:** March 11, 2026, 02:36:01 PM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on March 11, 2026, 01:30:54 PM

It's never been established that Archbishop Thuc withheld his intention for the Palmerians. That claim stems mainly from the 1982 Angelus article, which says he published a letter soon after saying this. However, the letter he wrote soon after in which he renounces his actions with the Palmerians, is referenced by the Vatican in a commentary in the decree of excommunication, and says nothing about withholding intention. No letter with him saying this has ever been produced, and it appears that the Angelus article exaggerated the statements made in his letter to Archbishop of Seville (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 17, 1976). Thuc-line critics have later claimed that such evidence was on private tapes, but those also have never been produced. The claim that he ever said he simulated sacraments is unverified hearsay, likely stemming from an exaggeration in the Angelus article.

.

Yes, we went through this with Tom before. Basically, when asked to provide proof that Bp. Thuc withheld his intention, he produced an article in the Angelus magazine that asserted this, written by I forget whom. When asked how the author of this article knew this (as it provided no proof in the article), Tom was at a loss to answer that.

So there's someone there that says Bp. Thuc withheld his intention. That's about all there is to the story.

Yeti · « **Reply #39 on:** March 11, 2026, 02:38:24 PM »

The whole story about "withheld intention" is a distortion of something Bp. Thuc said that does seem to be true, where he expressed regret for having consecrated the Palmarians due to their fall from the Church later on.

But someone who thinks "I should not have done that" and "I did not do that" are two equivalent statements is a bit dense in the head, obviously.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 2316 times)

Maria Dolorosa

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?

hgodwinson

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?

Yeti

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?

Yeti

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?